Marriage annulments

[joeybaggz]

I agree that this is a point that needs expounded upon. I don’t have issue with the theory of declaring a marriage null, based on the usual reasons listed for consent and truthfulness. But I get lost in what appears to be the sheer number of marriages found to be null. It would make me think that a sizable portion of existing marriages are in fact null unbeknownst to the couple, if the church is finding so many positive results (I.e. no sacrament occurred) at these tribunals.

While I don’t present myself as an “expert” in this area, I do know that there is a condition on which a tribunal can find a marriage null called “gross psychological immaturity.” (I believe that is it). It often applies to marriages between young people or those who marry on a whim based on solely affection, infatuation, or maybe even lust. Talk to almost any couple married for a long time and they will probably tell you that one does not really understand what is needed to make a marriage successful until they have been in it for quite some time. This is often the case with “quickie” marriages or marriages between the very (psychologically) young. It is a tricky judgment, but one that is sometimes made.
Remember, the litmus test for nullity is, "if one or the other partner were aware of this deficiency/impediment, would they have freely consented to the marriage at the time vows were exchanged. Case in point, if a woman knew at the time of the vows that she would be subject to severe physical abuse from the husband, even if such abuse was not evident at the time the vows were exchanged, would she freely consent to the marriage.
Given the societal expectations surrounding marriage today, expectations many Catholic and Christian couples are exposed to, it is no wonder that many valid or sacramemtal marriages actually never occur.

 

[BlackFriar]

But I get lost in what appears to be the sheer number of marriages found to be null. It would make me think that a sizable portion of existing marriages are in fact null unbeknownst to the couple, if the church is finding so many positive results (I.e. no sacrament occurred) at these tribunals.

You are likely quite right.
Even back in the 1980s my clerical professors (including my Canon Law lecturer) personally lamented that they considered many of the young marriages they saw or even celebrated were likely “null”. Even Pope Francis says as much.

That doesn’t mean that couples cannot mature well on into the marriage and sort of post-ratify these significant deficits. That is probably the norm.
There is much more to relationships than the nice white legal picket fence hedging we put around them to provide a minimal safety barrier for all parties involved. In the end people make marriages work not processes, not even sacramental processes.

 

[TEdwards]

I can say, with great conviction, that the pastoral practice and politics behind annulments needs some sunlight and reform --as does the whole Canon Law industry inside our church. I always smile when I hear some priest intone “… but I’m a lawyer” because he studied Canon law at some point in his career. Get over it; you aren’t.

An anullment, no matter how much spinning those associated with diocesean tribunals posit, is often the practical termination of a valid marriage. That is how some Catholics who run that gaunlet feel. They see it as sacramental rape; as spiritual malpractice. I’ve heard priests condemn reluctant parties to the sacramental butchering as being guilty of questioning THEIR authority. “Well, we follow Canon Law”. Right. While driving a Mac truck over reluctant Catholics.

If Jesus was here, he’d pickup the whip and drive these spinners and Tribunalists from His temple again. " Let no man…" evidently doesn’t include bishops, priests or the ever-present brown nosing lackeys who will carry anyone’s water bucket to be seen as part of self-professing church elites. Fundamental reform is needed in this area of the Sacrament of Marriage – and No, I don’t mean waiving fees to secure an anullment.

 

[BlackFriar]

Thankyou for sharing your great convictions with us.
Me, I’ll just follow the certain judgements of the Church in doubtful matters - God expects no more.

If you in conscience believe your annulled marriage is still valid despite the judgement of God’s appointed then by all means don’t marry again. And allow your partner the same freedom to follow that ruling.

 

[acanonlawyer]

the litmus test for nullity is, "if one or the other partner were aware of this deficiency/impediment, would they have freely consented to the marriage at the time vows were exchanged.

Intriguing. I have never heard of this litmus test before.

Dan

 

[joeybaggz]

“Litmus test” is a phrase used by a priest to try to explain to us lay people, one of the determinants used to describe that basis for those seeking a decree of nullity. Whether or not, “litmus” is a good and proper canonical term is certainly open for discussion. But the idea that nullity depends on the condition of both parties at the time of the exchange of vows is, I believe, at the heart of the question as to the validity and sacramental nature of a marriage. Whether or not it is “intriguing” to a canon lawyer is certainly within the purview of one’s understanding of canon law and the definition of the word, “intriguing”.

Shalom

 

[acanonlawyer]

The dissolution of a marriage takes place in a few different circumstances. So-called “Pauline Privilege” situations are handled entirely at the diocesan level. No one at the Tribunal dissolves the marriage. The now-baptized person’s new marriage itself dissolves the prior one.

So-called “Petrine Privilege” cases are “instructed” at the diocesan level and all the pertinent information is sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Officials there review the case and if everything is in order, present the petition for dissolution to the Pope and he dissolves the marriage for the “favor of the faith” of the baptized party.

Non-consummation cases (which I have never been involved with) are similar in their handling, although the CDF is not involved. I think the Roman Rota takes care of those nowadays and presents them to the Pope when they have seen that everything is in place.

In all three, I would say that one could refer to the “whatever you bind/loose” passage and say that these latter two dissolutions are examples (again, the “Pauline” cases are not dissolved by the Pope or any Church authority).

The declaration of nullity case does not involve a binding/loosing. It is a judicial process aimed at the discovery of the truth, in response to a question: are these Parties, who appeared to have married and are presumed to be married, actually not married because of this or that impediment/defect of consent/defect of form? As others have said, this is not a separation of “what God has joined” since, if the conclusion is that the Parties were not actually married, they are not being separated.

Dan

 

[acanonlawyer]

the idea that nullity depends on the condition of both parties at the time of the exchange of vows is, I believe, at the heart of the question as to the validity and sacramental nature of a marriage. Whether or not it is “intriguing” to a canon lawyer is certainly within the purview of one’s understanding of canon law and the definition of the word, “intriguing”.

Yes, “the condition of the Parties” is certainly an important consideration. As for me being “intrigued”, I’d say that it means just that. It was a comment that interested me and made me think.

Dan

 

[Arkansan]

Remember, the litmus test for nullity is, "if one or the other partner were aware of this deficiency/impediment, would they have freely consented to the marriage at the time vows were exchanged.

This is incorrect.

Can. 1097 §2. Error concerning a quality of the person does not render a marriage invalid even if it is the cause for the contract, unless this quality is directly and principally intended.

 

[pianistclare]

Our Archbishop does.

 

[Kei]

Not all baptisms are actual baptisms, not all confessions are actually confessions, not all celebrations of the Lord’s Supper are actually the Eucharist, not all marriages are actually marriages.

 

[TheOldColonel]

That’s extremely rare. I commend him.

 

[Whitney]

Remember, the litmus test for nullity is, "if one or the other partner were aware of this deficiency/impediment, would they have freely consented to the marriage at the time vows were exchanged.

Sure, and that is the general feeling of most people who are getting divorced, whether catholic or not. Most just keep it simple and call it divorce .

 

[joeybaggz]

In that instance, yes/maybe. In many or most other instances, it is correct.

 

[joeybaggz]

Sure, and that is the general feeling of most people who are getting divorced, whether catholic or not. Most just keep it simple and call it divorce .

Yea, and most people don’t give a tinker’s dam** about Jesus’ words, “what God has joined together, no man may divide.” The RCC does, and has something more substantive than just “get a divorce” believing that a civil judge does have the authority over what God has joined together???

 

[Whitney]

The RCC does, and has something more substantive than just “get a divorce” believing that a civil judge does have the authority over what God has joined together???

I am not sure I understand what you’re saying?

 

[joeybaggz]

I am not sure I understand what you’re saying?

I read you reply as your disillusionment (if that is a good word) with the whole topic of “decree of nullity” or “annulment” as popularity used by those who don’t really understand the “system.”
Earlier posters have made the point that nullity and divorce are not synonymous terms. One divides what is civilly contracted, one determines that no “contract” before God ever existed. That most people don’t care one way or the other, does not make a decree of nullity the equivalent of a civil divorce - the much ballyhooed term, “catholic divorce”
If I misread you, I’m sorry.

 

[Arkansan]

I’m not sure what “instance” you’re referring to. Error concerning a quality of a person does not nullify marriage unless it was directly and principally intended, or unless it was the result of fraud under Canon 1098. That a person would not have consented if not for a (not fraudulently induced) error concerning a quality of their spouse, does not nullify their consent.

 

[joeybaggz]

I’m not sure what “instance” you’re referring to. Error concerning a quality of a person does not nullify marriage unless it was directly and principally intended, or unless it was the result of fraud under Canon 1098.

Two hormonally charged 17 year olds run out and get married in a quickie marriage ceremony in Vegas (or Maryland), spend a week in bed, and then decide it was a mistake and get a divorce, that is the circumstance (or one of them) that I am referring to.
I am wondering if your term, “quality of a person” and my earlier term, “gross psychological immaturity” are not quite the same thing. In the above example, the above marriage (at least between two baptized Christians - though not Catholic ) is what posters on this forum are calling a “valid” marriage, and is not subject to annulment (or DofN). And yes, consent was given, that is not up for debate. My point is that the two are psychologically immature and not able to make an informed decision as to the serious and lifelong nature of marriage. I know in my experience this concept of gross psychological immaturity was proper grounds although I am open to the possibility that it has been modified or done away with.

 

[Arkansan]

The Church presumes that 17 year olds are capable of giving real consent to marriage.